Re: Revision of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses

2013-05-19 Thread Fernando Gont
On 05/19/2013 07:19 PM, james woodyatt wrote: >>> That's not the sort of assumption I want to see go unstated in a >>> Standards Track RFC. Better would be to avoid the ambiguity >>> altogether. For example, OS X does not have a requirement that >>> network interfaces have unique names. >> >>

Re: [6man] #1: Proper source for an "Interface Identifier"

2013-05-19 Thread Fernando Gont
On 05/19/2013 07:55 PM, Karl Auer wrote: > On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 19:06 -0300, Fernando Gont wrote: >> You're right. s/desirable/required/? >> >> (I don't think "REQUIRED" (caps) would be needed, since the bullests >> contain RFC2119-anguage, already). > > LC or UC "required" would be OK. Ok, done

Re: [6man] #1: Proper source for an "Interface Identifier"

2013-05-19 Thread Karl Auer
On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 19:06 -0300, Fernando Gont wrote: > You're right. s/desirable/required/? > > (I don't think "REQUIRED" (caps) would be needed, since the bullests > contain RFC2119-anguage, already). LC or UC "required" would be OK. Regards,K. -- ~~

Re: Revision of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses

2013-05-19 Thread james woodyatt
On May 19, 2013, at 14:52 , Fernando Gont wrote: > On 05/19/2013 06:27 PM, james woodyatt wrote: >> >> That's not the sort of assumption I want to see go unstated in a >> Standards Track RFC. Better would be to avoid the ambiguity >> altogether. For example, OS X does not have a requirement that

Re: [6man] #1: Proper source for an "Interface Identifier"

2013-05-19 Thread Fernando Gont
On 05/19/2013 07:03 PM, Karl Auer wrote: > On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 16:55 +, 6man issue tracker wrote: >> The following properties are desirable for the Net_Iface: >> o it MUST be constant across system bootstrap sequences and other >>network events (e.g., bringing another interface u

Re: [6man] #1: Proper source for an "Interface Identifier"

2013-05-19 Thread Karl Auer
On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 16:55 +, 6man issue tracker wrote: > The following properties are desirable for the Net_Iface: > o it MUST be constant across system bootstrap sequences and other >network events (e.g., bringing another interface up or down) > o it MUST be different for e

Re: Revision of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses

2013-05-19 Thread Fernando Gont
On 05/19/2013 06:27 PM, james woodyatt wrote: >>> The Net_Iface is a value that identifies the network interface >>> for which an IPv6 address is being generated. The following >>> properties are desirable for the Net_Iface: >>> >>> o it MUST be constant across system bootstrap sequences and >>>

Re: Revision of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses

2013-05-19 Thread Fernando Gont
On 05/19/2013 06:19 PM, Ray Hunter wrote: >> >> A few comments here: >> >> 1) Windows doesn't implement the traditional "embed the MAC address in >> the IID" scheme -- so Windows nodes are not affected. > > Do you happen to know how Windows behaves in this case? No idea. -- Although it shouldn't

Re: Revision of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses

2013-05-19 Thread james woodyatt
On May 19, 2013, at 13:16 , Fernando Gont wrote: > On 05/19/2013 04:31 PM, james woodyatt wrote: >> I have a problem with the following set of requirements: >> >> The Net_Iface is a value that identifies the network interface for >> which an IPv6 address is being generated. The following proper

Re: Revision of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses

2013-05-19 Thread Ray Hunter
> Fernando Gont > 19 May 2013 22:08 > Hi, Ray, > > Thanks so much for your feedback! -- Please find my comments in-line > > On 05/19/2013 03:49 PM, Ray Hunter wrote: >> I think the draft is looking very good and is "ready to go." I >> support it. > > Thanks! > > >

Re: Revision of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses

2013-05-19 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 20/05/2013 08:08, Fernando Gont wrote: ... >> If the SLAAC node arrives on link first, >> draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses will back off, increment >> (and presumably remember) the DAD counter and everything will work >> nominally. >> >> To be clear, I think this is probably more of an

Re: Revision of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses

2013-05-19 Thread Fernando Gont
On 05/19/2013 04:31 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > I have a problem with the following set of requirements: > > The Net_Iface is a value that identifies the network interface for > which an IPv6 address is being generated. The following properties > are desirable for the Net_Iface: > > o it MUST

Re: Revision of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses

2013-05-19 Thread Fernando Gont
Hi, Ray, Thanks so much for your feedback! -- Please find my comments in-line On 05/19/2013 03:49 PM, Ray Hunter wrote: > I think the draft is looking very good and is "ready to go." I > support it. Thanks! > I'm not 100.0% convinced by one sentence, but I can live with > it. > > Quo

Re: Revision of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses

2013-05-19 Thread james woodyatt
On May 19, 2013, at 10:33 , Fernando Gont wrote: > > The rev is available at: > . > > A diff from the previous version of the I-D is available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06.txt&ur

Re: Revision of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses

2013-05-19 Thread Ray Hunter
> Fernando Gont > 19 May 2013 19:33 > Folks, > > I've posted a rev of the aforementioned document, meant to address the > comments received during IETF LC. > > This rev is the result of the IETF LC discussions we had on the 6man wg > list and on the general IETF list,

RE: Revision of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses

2013-05-19 Thread Christian Huitema
> The rev is available at: > . Nice job, Fernando. I have read this revision. I think it fairly reflects the comments from the WG. -- Christian Huitema I

Revision of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses

2013-05-19 Thread Fernando Gont
Folks, I've posted a rev of the aforementioned document, meant to address the comments received during IETF LC. This rev is the result of the IETF LC discussions we had on the 6man wg list and on the general IETF list, and of off-list discussions with a number of folks who generously provided inp

Re: [6man] #2: Description of issues with traditional SLAAC addresses (embedding IEEE identifiers)

2013-05-19 Thread 6man issue tracker
#2: Description of issues with traditional SLAAC addresses (embedding IEEE identifiers) Changes (by fg...@si6networks.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: The introduction of this document has been augmented to make the problem statement for evident. Additionall

Re: [6man] #4: Normative section / Informational section

2013-05-19 Thread 6man issue tracker
#4: Normative section / Informational section Changes (by fg...@si6networks.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: My response to this post is available at: That said, as noted in another ticket,

I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-07.txt

2013-05-19 Thread internet-drafts
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF. Title : A method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced Addresses with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)

Re: [6man] #1: Proper source for an "Interface Identifier"

2013-05-19 Thread 6man issue tracker
#1: Proper source for an "Interface Identifier" Changes (by fg...@si6networks.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: The "Interface Identifier" has now been replaced with a generic "Net_Iface" parameter, and we describe what are the required properties for this I